For what it's worth, I wrote the original PEP 318. I probably wasn't
qualified, but I just wanted a nice simple way to declare class methods
without having to repeat the function name. After submitting it to
BDFL for approval, more work was needed and the discussion of PEP 318
on python-dev increased rapidly. It was evident that I was in over my
head, so I asked more someone more experienced to take over.
I guess others had bigger plans for my proposal that I had planned. It
has turned into the "solution" to many problems: type checking (both
arguments and returned values), metaclasses, metadata, interfaces,
function attributes, etc.). Unfortunately, in the process, this simple
request for syntactical sugar has turned into a monstrosity. In my
opinion, none of the proposed syntaxes really seem Pythonic. This PEP
just seems to be trying to solve too many problems.
Bear with me, but I'd like to propose one more syntax that is simple,
easy for newbies to understand, and nowhere near as powerful as the
current PEP's syntax. However, it doesn't add incoherent, arbitrary
syntax either.
def classmethod foo(x, y, z):
pass
That's it. One "decorator" that is a callable object that takes a
method as it's only argument. No expressions, lists, tuples, etc.
Just one callable object. Ok, if you absolutely must have more than
one.
def classmethod synchronized foo(x, y, z):
pass
Once again, no expressions. I know that this isn't going to solve
everyone's type-checking, metadata, and function attribute problems,
but let's face it, using this PEP for all of those things just creates
ugly syntax. There must be more Pythonic ways to do those things in
their own PEPs.
Kevin Smith
Kevin.Smith at themorgue.org
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4